Table 3.
Comparison of the proportion of patients with a favourable neurological outcome (CPC 1–2) between the ECPR and CCPR groups using propensity score analysis with the inverse probability of the treatment-weighting method
| Variables | Treatment | n | CPC 1–2 | OR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | ECPR | 307 | 22 (7%) | 0.328 (0.141–0.761) | 0.010 |
| CCPR | 2278 | 390 (17%) | |||
| NLT (min)a | |||||
| > 30 min | ECPR | 296 | 17 (6%) | 2.977 (1.056–8.388) | 0.039 |
| CCPR | 1362 | 20 (2%) | |||
| > 45 min | ECPR | 248 | 10 (4%) | 5.099 (1.259–20.657) | 0.023 |
| CCPR | 719 | 6 (1%) | |||
| NLT | |||||
| < 30 min | ECPR | 9 | 4 (44%) | 0.174 (0.033–0.917) | 0.040 |
| CCPR | 914 | 370 (40%) | |||
The propensity score analysis incorporated the following variables: age, sex (male), bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shockable rhythm and low flow time
CPC cerebral performance category, ECPR extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CCPR conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, NLT no and low-flow time
aDefined as the interval from witnessed OHCA to start of reperfusion (start of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for ECPR or return of spontaneous circulation for CCPR)